Willie Smith v. Aaron Ford ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 24 2022
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    WILLIE T. SMITH,                                No. 21-16042
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00501-JAD-CLB
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    AARON FORD; JAMES DZURENDA; C.
    DANIELS; B. WILLIAMS; J. NASH; W.
    GITTERE; D. DRUMMOND; W.
    REUBART; S. MOYLE; T. SANDOVAL; J.
    BARTH; D. SOUTHWORTH; W. MOORE;
    MARY SHAKAYLA, St.; THRASHER,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Nevada
    Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted May 17, 2022**
    Before:      CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    Nevada state prisoner Willie T. Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s
    order denying his motion for injunctive relief in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    alleging various constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
    (a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Arc of Cal. v. Douglas, 
    757 F.3d 975
    , 983 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Smith’s motion for
    a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction because Smith failed to
    demonstrate that such relief is warranted. See 
    id.
     (requiring a plaintiff seeking
    preliminary injunction to establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, he is
    likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, the balance of
    equities tips in his favor, and an injunction is in the public interest).
    We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
    in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
    appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
    Appellees’ request for summary affirmance, set forth in the answering brief,
    is denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     21-16042
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-16042

Filed Date: 5/24/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 5/24/2022